godot_tools

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states actions (search, describe, call) but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, permissions required, or how the tool interacts with other system components. Significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (single sentence), which is efficient but lacks depth. It earns its place by stating purpose, but could be longer to add value. Not under-specified like a tautology, but minimalistic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested arguments, multiple actions) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the actions, when to set toolName, or the role of query and domain. Agents would need to infer usage from the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain relationships between parameters or how they work together. No improvement over structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is for searching, inspecting, or calling tools outside the default core surface. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings which are individual tools. However, 'core surface' is vague and could be more explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is appropriate. For a meta-tool managing access to other tools, explicit usage guidelines are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.